Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortdefendantobjectionappellantappellee

Related Cases

Thomas v. Weller, 204 Neb. 298, 281 N.W.2d 790
View Case »
Margason v. Roberts, 919 P.2d 818, 30 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 751
View Case »
Giardina v. Bennett, 111 N.J. 412, 545 A.2d 139, 57 USLW 2127
View Case »
Wiersum v. Harder, 316 P.3d 557
View Case »
DiGiuseppe v. Lawler, 269 S.W.3d 588, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 29
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296, 68 N.E.2d 464, 167 A.L.R. 232

Facts

Stanley Heck, a member of the armed forces, filed a complaint against Alvin S. Schupp, alleging that Schupp had alienated the affections of his wife, Henrietta Heck. Heck claimed that Schupp engaged in an illicit affair with Henrietta while he was hospitalized and that this caused him to be deprived of her affection and support. The complaint was dismissed by the superior court based on the 'Heart Balm' Act, which was argued to be unconstitutional.

Appellant, on July 31, 1945, filed his complaint against appellee, alleging that he, a member of the armed forces of the United States and hospitalized at Temple, Texas, was on January 1, 1939, married to one Henrietta Heck; that after he joined the armed forces of the United States and defendant, well knowing the happy condition of his home life, by subterfuge, contrivance and design, did wickedly and wantonly overcome the devotion and love of said Henrietta toward him.

Issue

Did the 'Heart Balm' Act violate the Illinois Constitution, specifically sections 13 of article IV and 19 of article II?

Appellant urges that the act known as the ‘Heart Balm’ Act, violates section 13 of article IV and section 19 of article II of the constitution of this State.

Rule

The court applied the principles that no act passed by the General Assembly shall embrace more than one subject, and that every person ought to find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs.

Section 13 of article IV provides in part that no act passed by the General Assembly shall embrace more than one subject and that shall be expressed in the title.

Analysis

The court found that the title of the 'Heart Balm' Act did not accurately express its purpose, which was to prohibit actions for alienation of affections. It concluded that the act violated the constitutional requirement that the subject be expressed in the title. Furthermore, the court determined that the act infringed upon the right to seek legal remedy for injuries related to family relationships, thus violating the bill of rights provisions of the Illinois Constitution.

We are of the opinion that the title to this act does not fairly express the purposes as disclosed by section 1. It is therefore open to the objection that it is contrary to section 13 of article IV.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Heck's complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that the 'Heart Balm' Act was unconstitutional.

The judgment of the superior court of Cook county is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Stanley Heck prevailed in the case because the court found the 'Heart Balm' Act unconstitutional, allowing him to proceed with his claim for alienation of affections.

The act is entitled: ‘An Act in relation to certain causes of action conductive to extortion and blackmail, and to declare illegal, contracts and acts made and done in pursuance thereof.’

You must be